Smt. Kiran Rozy, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 627/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8299 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 627&628/CHD/2012 A.YS: 2001-02 & 2003-04 SMT.KIRAN ROZY, VS THE ACIT, 1273, SECTOR 44-C, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAWPR3567M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGG ARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM BOTH THE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGA ON DATED 29.03.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND 2003-04. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE EARLIER DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. HOWEVER, BY ALLOWING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2 015, BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN RESTORED AND FIXED FOR H EARING ON MERITS. 3. IN BOTH THE APPEALS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO.1. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04, 2 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PRESS GRO UND NO. 2(II). THESE GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE, THERE FORE, DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 4. THE ONLY GROUNDS LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 96,622/- AND RS. 2,60,041/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED DEPOSIT IN VAR IOUS BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNTS. IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 2001-02, THERE WERE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SUM OF RS. 96,622/- AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, SIMILARLY THERE WERE UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SUM OF RS. 2,60,041/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED INCOME FROM SALARY AND HOUSE PROPERTY SEPARATELY AND MADE THESE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL BEFO RE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THESE DEPOSITS. THERE FORE, ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT OR DER. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE RELEVANT PROCEEDING S BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ULTIMATELY BOTH THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BECAUSE ASSESSEE DID NOT 3 FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE BAN K DEPOSITS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNTS THEREFORE, THESE ARE EXPLAINED THROUGH THE WITHDRAW ALS. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH MAY HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE ABOVE BANK DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. WHATEVER CONTENTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVI DENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE US BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FILED TO EXPLAIN ABOV E BANK DEPOSITS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE ARE UNABLE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E HAVE NO MERIT AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH,2016. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (B HAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 31 ST MARCH,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH